]]>2019-05-24T17:40:05+01:002019-05-24T17:40:05+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176572&p=15007146#p15007146MrWonderful wrote:The subject is the Craziness of Comparing Evolution and Gravity. You did just that.

I did no such thing.We have evidence of both. That is not a comparison. You can't express gravity in terms of evolution nor vice versa. So, can you cite precisely and succinctly where any such comparison was made?And by whom.

]]>2019-05-24T01:22:35+01:002019-05-24T01:22:35+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006989#p15006989@MrWonderful Context is important. You thinking this related to Evolution is mere fancy, and dishonest, to say the least.

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[7] He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

No, we have evolved precisely to find the universe intelligible (understandable).

That's a philosophical begging of the question; somehow, magically stuff happened over time, randomly, and produced intelligence. I see there's no looking outside your closed circle for you at this time.

That is how we survive: by understanding the universe, and thus being able to predict what will happen. The benefit of science is that it makes understanding and thus prediction much more reliable.

That's giving Science the attributes and expectations of a Religion, which is why I call most of what passes for Science today ''Scientism''.

A study of the evidence of vestigial organs, natural selection, the fifth digit, the relevance of the stickleback, Darwin's finches and Lenski's bacteria—all under the microscope of the Scientific Method—observable evidence from the minds of experts.

]]>2019-05-23T20:58:56+01:002019-05-23T20:58:56+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176572&p=15006962#p15006962MrWonderful wrote:The subject is the Craziness of Comparing Evolution and Gravity. You did just that.Of course that is what atheists and other Leftists do, try to confuse and obfuscate.

Science is a good thing. Christianity is also a good thing. One talented writer has stated that mankind lived without science for many centuries, but not without religion.

This "science" about which you and others wax effusive gave humanity:1. Nuclear bombs, used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and threatening today from North Korea and Iran,2. Zyklon B poison gas, used on hundreds of thousands of Jews in Germany,3. Sex change operations,4. Partial birth abortions,5. *Toxic* gasoline, now *poisoning the air and the entire earth!*

Do try to read what I posted before commenting on it instead of trying to invent what you think I meant.

I am NOT claiming that all science has been good for mankind or the earth. You list five negatives. There are countless positives in the medical field alone. Sanitation, clean water on tap, electricity where you get power and lighting at the flick of a switch, vehicle safety, better communications, medical procedures for conditions that could not have been previously treated, penicillin........the list goes on.

]]>2019-05-23T20:31:53+01:002019-05-23T20:31:53+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176572&p=15006960#p15006960MrWonderful wrote:As to the nonsense demand to "prove evolution is not true," this comes from the very same group of militant, condescending atheists who will never attempt to prove that the universe came from nothing.

]]>2019-05-23T19:59:55+01:002019-05-23T19:59:55+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006956#p15006956annatar1914 wrote:It's the uiniverse's intelligibility that presupposes a Creator Who is in fact Intelligence Himself. Once you go down the path to random Chaos somehow magically resolving itself into Order, one's own intelligibility becomes after a while madness, nonsense.

No, we have evolved precisely to find the universe intelligible (understandable). That is how we survive: by understanding the universe, and thus being able to predict what will happen. The benefit of science is that it makes understanding and thus prediction much more reliable.

]]>2019-05-23T19:53:28+01:002019-05-23T19:53:28+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006955#p15006955MrWonderful wrote:“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.” (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

A healthy question to ask. I don't see the problem here?

Further, what's the claim here?

MrWonderful wrote:"A>B>C>D" is all you need for "evolution." It's SOOO simple, isn't it.

]]>2019-05-23T19:46:58+01:002019-05-23T19:46:58+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006951#p15006951“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.” (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

]]>2019-05-23T19:15:18+01:002019-05-23T19:15:18+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175966&p=15006947#p15006947Why did Al Gore buy a home close to the ocean in San Francisco if the dangerous flood is coming?

by the time shit will get serious he will be deadand there is an insurance anyway

Why are thousands immigrating to the Maldives and development there is exploding?

because they want to develop their economy and attract foreign investors like any other country

Why aren't oceanfront properties around the globe plummeting

it will take dozens of years if not by the end of this century for that to happen

]]>2019-05-23T18:59:26+01:002019-05-23T18:59:26+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006942#p15006942ingliz wrote:The theory of evolution, both currently and as first conceived by Darwin and Wallace, neither provides, nor requires, an explanation for the origin of life.

]]>2019-05-23T18:07:32+01:002019-05-23T18:07:32+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006935#p15006935ingliz wrote: "It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter."

Charles Darwin from a letter to American botanist Joseph Hooker (29 Mar 1863)

LOL yourself:

“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.” (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

As to the nonsense demand to "prove evolution is not true," this comes from the very same group of militant, condescending atheists who will never attempt to prove that the universe came from nothing.The onus is on Darwinists to prove their claims. They can't even create new life forms from the most rapidly reproducing extant life forms, despite millions of dollars in research funds squandered, with no new species produced even when artificially irradiated to speed up mutations enormously.

]]>2019-05-23T17:30:36+01:002019-05-23T17:30:36+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006930#p15006930ingliz wrote:[Darwinism] refers strictly to biological evolution. Creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of life, and it has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin's work.

Wiki

"LOL"Darwin titled his book "The Origin of Species". The original life form was a specie. Attempting to elude abiogenesis is a clever word game, nothing more. Why have biologists and chemists worked so feverishly for decades to demonstrate abiogenesis, as in the now infamous "Miller-Urey Experiment," which accidentally synthesized only tiny amounts of a few simple amino acids, under strict laboratory conditions, in a very controlled environment, and even then only the racemic mixtures, which would of course be useless in synthesizing proteins from exclusively the L forms?

]]>2019-05-23T16:49:26+01:002019-05-23T16:49:26+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006925#p15006925Truth To Power wrote:Most people have very little intuitive understanding of probability and large numbers. A thousand seems like a large number, and a million is larger, and a billion is larger than that, etc. But it's hard for people to understand how much bigger than a thousand a trillion is. Think of it this way: a cupful of dried peas is about a thousand. A trillion would be a large football stadium full. The probability of the coin landing on edge on the mantelpiece is much, much smaller than one in a million. Maybe one in trillion, or a quadrillion.

You are correct but I have no idea what you are trying to prove.

By the way, there was a picture of thousands of floating trees in a river in an issue of Scientific American and the point was to show that the maximum we can comprehend would be like ten thousand. After that, we cannot comprehend or imagine.

]]>2019-05-23T16:43:59+01:002019-05-23T16:43:59+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006923#p15006923Truth To Power wrote:Most people have very little intuitive understanding of probability and large numbers.

Yes, true. Nor the vast time scales involved. Nor the number of species that have become extinct. More than 99%.The creator, if there was one, wasn't very good with his designs.

]]>2019-05-23T16:29:10+01:002019-05-23T16:29:10+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006917#p15006917Ter wrote:About the extremely small probability that something will happen, the following : my six year old son asked me years ago to buy a lottery ticket so we could become rich. I told him that the probability of us winning the million prize was so small, it would be like me throwing a coin at full force through the room and the coin will end up standing on its side on the mantelpiece.My son replied : but every week someone is winning.I had nothing to say about that, till today.(I should have beaten him up, the little rascal, humiliating his Dad like that)

Most people have very little intuitive understanding of probability and large numbers. A thousand seems like a large number, and a million is larger, and a billion is larger than that, etc. But it's hard for people to understand how much bigger than a thousand a trillion is. Think of it this way: a cupful of dried peas is about a thousand. A trillion would be a large football stadium full. The probability of the coin landing on edge on the mantelpiece is much, much smaller than one in a million. Maybe one in trillion, or a quadrillion.

]]>2019-05-23T09:02:41+01:002019-05-23T09:02:41+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006884#p15006884[Darwinism] refers strictly to biological evolution. Creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of life, and it has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin's work.

]]>2019-05-23T03:16:25+01:002019-05-23T03:16:25+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006831#p15006831About the extremely small probability that something will happen, the following : my six year old son asked me years ago to buy a lottery ticket so we could become rich. I told him that the probability of us winning the million prize was so small, it would be like me throwing a coin at full force through the room and the coin will end up standing on its side on the mantelpiece.My son replied : but every week someone is winning.I had nothing to say about that, till today.(I should have beaten him up, the little rascal, humiliating his Dad like that)

]]>2019-05-23T02:55:22+01:002019-05-23T02:55:22+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006830#p15006830It was in response to this stupid, and off-topic, post:

MrWonderful wrote:There is a lovely graph showing the percentage of various faiths and their retention rates.At the bottom of the list is atheism, 30% retention. Atheism has been stipulated to be a religion by the Supreme Court. This is something that makes atheists gnash their teeth in fury.heh heh

]]>2019-05-23T02:53:06+01:002019-05-23T02:53:06+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006828#p15006828Godstud wrote:@MrWonderful I see you cannot make up an argument, so you turn to insulting people, misquoting them, or simply pretending you are being oppressed. The other people in this thread are at least having a reasonable discussion. Why don't you argue your point, like an adult. This isn't your regular 4chan/Reddit playground.

Most people, regardless of their religious affiliation, are reasonable and thoughtful people. Your bigotry is obvious.

"Godstud"'s "reasonable discussion on full display:

RE: THE EVOLUTION FRAUD#15006016By Godstud - 19 May 2019 18:32

Coming from you that is fucking RICH! Religion does not belong with science, an atheism isn't a religion, either, so you need to smarten, the fuck, up. Religion has no place in a discussion about science, but fanatics like you always bring it up.

Evolution is one of the most proven scientific theories in existence. People who try to disprove it make themselves look like idiots.

… the High Church atheist’s undeveloped social skills are often so dramatic as to be reasonably described as a form of social autism. – page 16

It is worth noting that it was neither Christians nor Muslims but revolutionary atheists inspired by Enlightenment ideals who beheaded the man known today as the father of modern chemistry, Antoine- Laurent de Lavoisier, in 1794, declaring “La Repubique n’a pas besoin de savants ne de chimistes.” (The Republic has no need of scientists or chemists.) – page 42

[La Terreur was of course the direct result of the Enlightenment, where atheist intellectuals denounced Christianity and religious leadership, in the name of “science and reason.” They dontinue their contemptible behavior today, everywhere.]

===================

[The Irrational Atheist is a brilliantly inspired, documented, and written book which I highly recommend to all thoughtful people.]

]]>2019-05-23T02:19:18+01:002019-05-23T02:19:18+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176572&p=15006816#p15006816Scientific law vs. theory and factsMany people think that if scientists find evidence that supports a hypothesis, the hypothesis is upgraded to a theory and if the theory if found to be correct, it is upgraded to a law. That is not how it works at all, though. In fact, facts, theories and laws — as well as hypotheses — are separate parts of the scientific method. Though they may evolve, they aren't upgraded to something else.

"Hypotheses, theories and laws are rather like apples, oranges and kumquats: one cannot grow into another, no matter how much fertilizer and water are offered," according to the University of California. A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon; a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon. A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept, according to Kennesaw State University.

"There are four major concepts in science: facts, hypotheses, laws, and theories," Coppinger told Live Science.

Though scientific laws and theories are supported by a large body of empirical data, accepted by the majority of scientists within that area of scientific study and help to unify it, they are not the same thing.

"Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton's Law of Gravity or Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment. These laws simply describe the observation. Not how or why they work, said Coppinger.Coppinger pointed out that the Law of Gravity was discovered by Isaac Newton in the 17th century. This law mathematically describes how two different bodies in the universe interact with each other. However, Newton's law doesn't explain what gravity is, or how it works.It wasn't until three centuries later, when Albert Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity, that scientists began to understand what gravity is, and how it works.

"Newton's law is useful to scientists in that astrophysicists can use this centuries-old law to land robots on Mars. But it doesn't explain how gravity works, or what it is. Similarly, Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment describes how different traits are passed from parent to offspring, not how or why it happens," Coppinger said.

Another example of the difference between a theory and a law would be the case of Gregor Mendel. Mendel discovered that two different genetic traits would appear independently of each other in different offspring. "Yet Mendel knew nothing of DNA or chromosomes. It wasn't until a century later that scientists discovered DNA and chromosomes — the biochemical explanation of Mendel's laws. It was only then that scientists, such as T.H. Morgan working with fruit flies, explained the Law of Independent Assortment using the theory of chromosomal inheritance. Still today, this is the universally accepted explanation (theory) for Mendel's Law," Coppinger said.

The difference between scientific laws and scientific facts is a bit harder to define, though the definition is important. Facts are simple, basic observations that have been shown to be true. Laws are generalized observations about a relationship between two or more things in the natural world. The law can be based on facts and tested hypothesizes, according to NASA.

For example, "There are five trees in my yard" is considered a fact because it is a simple statement that can be proven. "The apples fall down from the tree in my back yard and not up" is a law because it describes how two things in nature behave that has been observed in a certain circumstance. If the circumstance changes, then the law would change. For example, in the vacuum of space, the apple may float upward from the tree instead of downward.https://www.livescience.com/21457-what- ... c-law.html

]]>2019-05-23T01:02:17+01:002019-05-23T01:02:17+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006807#p15006807Godstud wrote:@MrWonderful I see you cannot make up an argument, so you turn to insulting people, misquoting them, or simply pretending you are being oppressed. The other people in this thread are at least having a reasonable discussion. Why don't you argue your point, like an adult. This isn't your regular 4chan/Reddit playground.

Most people, regardless of their religious affiliation, are reasonable and thoughtful people. Your bigotry is obvious.

There are still reasonable people of good will out there on all sides of most of these issues, but there is a growing divide. I can look at the trends of thought and see that quite well. As i've said before to you and others on PoFo in the past-even recently-such ''proofs'' as are offered do not convince set minds and hearts, and are a species of a lack of faith on the part of the one offering proof to begin with. They see the future but do not want to cede what power and worldly success in modern society they still have.

For the future on one part is atheistic, secular, statist, socialistic and technocratic, AI driven and with transhumanist beliefs gradually changing the way it means to be human in a fundamental way. A cult of Scientism. This started with Copernicus and gained traction with Darwin and Marx but did not end there. It will shape a person into something utterly unrecognizable to one's ancestors before they can even hesitate to begin doubting.

Decades ago, atheists argued against God by claiming that "the universe is just too big! God would not have wasted all that matter and space and energy just to make a place for mankind! Come on, people. Wise up, like us."

Today, the Anthropic Principle has thrown a monkey wrench into atheists tired old Big Universe verbiage. Now they claim "The Multiverse! The Multiverse! We're just one in an infinite number of universes, see. And ours works on account of we're here! It just 'happens'."

From one asinine claim to the opposite asinine extreme, without blinking an eye. Zero empirical evidence, just waving the atheists' magic wand of verbal wordplay.

You used the word impossible, that implies certainty. It's not impossible, at most it's extremely unlikely but extremely unlikely things happen all the time.

That is the greatest nonsense posed in the name of mathematics that is possible.A random sequence of coin tosses is profoundly different from a sequence of all heads, or a sequence of all tails. Profoundly different. To claim that the "probability is one because it happened" begs the question of WHAT happened. A random event? Please.

You can't rule out chance, every sequence is just as improbable as the next. And no matter how unlikely an outcome may seem from our perspective, when you consider that it may very well be the case that our universe is just one among countless many in an infinite many worlds multiverse then a world like ours is guaranteed to come about at random.

]]>2019-05-22T23:34:16+01:002019-05-22T21:21:22+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006770#p15006770Sivad wrote:Hence, CSI can at most provide a "very high probability", but not absolute certainty.

And where, pray tell, do we find "absolute certainty" in life? That you will arrive at your destination when you drive your car somewhere? That you will celebrate your next birthday?

Another criticism refers to the problem of "arbitrary but specific outcomes". For example, if a coin is tossed randomly 1000 times, the probability of any particular outcome occurring is roughly one in 10 to the 300. For any particular specific outcome of the coin-tossing process, the a priori probability (probability measured before event happens) that this pattern occurred is thus one in 10 to the 300, which is astronomically smaller than Dembski's universal probability bound of one in 10 to the 150. Yet we know that the post hoc probability (probabilitly as observed after event occurs) of its happening is exactly one, since we observed it happening.

That is the greatest nonsense posed in the name of mathematics that is possible.A random sequence of coin tosses is profoundly different from a sequence of all heads, or a sequence of all tails. Profoundly different. To claim that the "probability is one because it happened" begs the question of WHAT happened. A random event? Please.

A sequence of a bunch of polypeptides "happening" is nothing like the synthesis of hemoglobin, defying LeChatelier's Principle, which incidentally, nobody has even ventured an attempt at explaining.

EDIT: I just returned from our afternoon walk, and along the lovely way, I pondered the game of poker, as played by Sivad. His opponent bets big and shows four aces. Sivad shows 2,4,5,8 10 of four different suits and calls it a draw. "DRAW? Where do you get off calling these two hands "DRAWS"? says his poker opponent holding four aces.

"Well," the ever brilliant Sivad argues, "my hand is JUST as improbable as yours. So there."

Four Aces: "Ya got me there. Let's split the pot, okay?"

Do you think that has ever happened? heh heh hehHere's a clue: No, and it never will, simply because a random event is NOT improbable. It's just playing word games, which atheists excel at.

This is similar to the observation that it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner; to argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win.

So why don't you buy ONE Super Lotto ticket! You're bound to win. The probability is 1, right?It's all so simple. "No one will win" is YOUR phrase, nobody else's. For you to argue that one player has enhanced odds because you make a tired but utterly fallacious argument of any sequence, as the famous physicist said, "isn't right. It isn't even wrong."

Apart from such theoretical considerations, critics cite reports of evidence of the kind of evolutionary "spontanteous (SIC) generation" that Dembski claims is too improbable to occur naturally. For example, in 1982, B.G. Hall published research demonstrating that after removing a gene that allows sugar digestion in certain bacteria, those bacteria, when grown in media rich in sugar, rapidly evolve (sic) (You mean "adapt") new sugar-digesting enzymes to replace those removed.[28]

Adaptation is not Darwinian evolution, as in all life emerging from the first one-celled organism, whatever you wish to define that as.

]]>2019-05-22T20:31:10+01:002019-05-22T20:31:10+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176572&p=15006763#p15006763Sivad wrote:A theory is an explanation for a phenomenon, not the phenomenon itself.

Yes, thanks for correcting. That is much more precise.

None the less, it's called a theory when the explanation for the phenomenon, has strong supporting evidence.

]]>2019-05-22T20:30:31+01:002019-05-22T20:30:31+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006762#p15006762MrWonderful wrote:.There is a scientific challenge posed. Nobody in Darwin's archaic camp wants to attempt it because it is clearly impossible to get anywhere with odds of 1 in 10 to the 10,000th or less.

The soundness of Dembski's concept of specified complexity and the validity of arguments based on this concept are widely disputed. A frequent criticism (see Elsberry and Shallit) is that Dembski has used the terms "complexity", "information" and "improbability" interchangeably. These numbers measure properties of things of different types: Complexity measures how hard it is to describe an object (such as a bitstring), information is how much the uncertainty about the state of an object is reduced by knowing the state of another object or system[23], and improbability measures how unlikely an event is given a probability distribution.

On page 150 of No Free Lunch Dembski claims he can demonstrate his thesis mathematically: "In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information." When Tellgren investigated Dembski's "Law of Conservation of Information” using a more formal approach, he concluded it is mathematically unsubstantiated.[24] Dembski responded in part that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity".[25] Jeffrey Shallit states that Demski's mathematical argument has multiple problems, for example; a crucial calculation on page 297 of No Free Lunch is off by a factor of approximately 1065.[26]

Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function cannot gain information. He therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). When information is replicated, some copies can be differently modified while others remain the same, allowing information to increase. These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.[27]

According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation".[6]

Dembski's critics note that specified complexity, as originally defined by Leslie Orgel, is precisely what Darwinian evolution is supposed to create. Critics maintain that Dembski uses "complex" as most people would use "absurdly improbable". They also claim that his argument is circular: CSI cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus. They argue that to successfully demonstrate the existence of CSI, it would be necessary to show that some biological feature undoubtedly has an extremely low probability of occurring by any natural means whatsoever, something which Dembski and others have almost never attempted to do. Such calculations depend on the accurate assessment of numerous contributing probabilities, the determination of which is often necessarily subjective. Hence, CSI can at most provide a "very high probability", but not absolute certainty.

Another criticism refers to the problem of "arbitrary but specific outcomes". For example, if a coin is tossed randomly 1000 times, the probability of any particular outcome occurring is roughly one in 10300. For any particular specific outcome of the coin-tossing process, the a priori probability (probability measured before event happens) that this pattern occurred is thus one in 10300, which is astronomically smaller than Dembski's universal probability bound of one in 10150. Yet we know that the post hoc probability (probabilitly as observed after event occurs) of its happening is exactly one, since we observed it happening. This is similar to the observation that it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner; to argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win. Similarly, it has been argued that "a space of possibilities is merely being explored, and we, as pattern-seeking animals, are merely imposing patterns, and therefore targets, after the fact."[14]

Apart from such theoretical considerations, critics cite reports of evidence of the kind of evolutionary "spontanteous generation" that Dembski claims is too improbable to occur naturally. For example, in 1982, B.G. Hall published research demonstrating that after removing a gene that allows sugar digestion in certain bacteria, those bacteria, when grown in media rich in sugar, rapidly evolve new sugar-digesting enzymes to replace those removed.[28] Another widely cited example is the discovery of nylon eating bacteria that produce enzymes only useful for digesting synthetic materials that did not exist prior to the invention of nylon in 1935.

]]>2019-05-22T20:16:34+01:002019-05-22T20:16:34+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006759#p15006759MrWonderful wrote:You expect someone to interpret plain English for you? You can't understand what has been written?Then more explanation will certainly not help, since you are not interested in reading and thinking about what was written. You have your extremely biased agenda, and that is that.

I have carefully read your posts. You have not made a single verifiable and coherent criticism of evolution or its accompanying theory.

Your words, not mine. Incidentally, your atavars read "more posts then (sic) 5,000"How is it that the owner and moderators of this forum can't even write simple English?Nor can Pants-of-dog.

If you are arguing thay speciation is not a fact, then how do you account for the fact that it has been observed?

There is a scientific challenge posed. Nobody in Darwin's archaic camp wants to attempt it because it is clearly impossible to get anywhere with odds of 1 in 10 to the 10,000th or less.

If you are alluding to your polypeptides argument, I have already addressed it.

]]>2019-05-22T20:10:53+01:002019-05-22T20:10:53+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176572&p=15006758#p15006758Rancid wrote:Theory is any phenomenon which has a significant amount of evidence supporting it.

A theory is an explanation for a phenomenon, not the phenomenon itself.

Theory is any phenomenon which has a significant amount of evidence supporting it. If there is not a significant amount of evidence supporting it, it cannot be called a theory. Likewise, evolution is in fact a theory as well. There is evidence supporting it (like observing genetic change in fruit flies who's life cycles are very short).

In common parlance, the word theory is often used incorrectly.

often when people say "That's just a theory" what they really mean is "That's just a hypothesis."

]]>2019-05-22T19:44:47+01:002019-05-22T19:44:47+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006752#p15006752Pants-of-dog wrote:So what exactly is the criticism?

You expect someone to interpret plain English for you? You can't understand what has been written?Then more explanation will certainly not help, since you are not interested in reading and thinking about what was written. You have your extremely biased agenda, and that is that.

Is the OP denying the fact that new species of life forms cone (sic) into existence through gradual change?

Your words, not mine. Incidentally, your atavars read "more posts then (sic) 5,000"How is it that the owner and moderators of this forum can't even write simple English?Nor can Pants-of-dog.

Or is the OP criticising a particular aspect ig (sic) Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection?

There is a scientific challenge posed. Nobody in Darwin's archaic camp wants to attempt it because it is clearly impossible to get anywhere with odds of 1 in 10 to the 10,000th or less.

]]>2019-05-22T19:37:07+01:002019-05-22T19:37:07+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176572&p=15006749#p15006749Besoeker2 wrote:Over the years, even centuries, science has offered many explanations of how things work, evolve, go extinct with theories and testable evidence.Religion does not.

The subject is the Craziness of Comparing Evolution and Gravity. You did just that.Of course that is what atheists and other Leftists do, try to confuse and obfuscate.

Science is a good thing. Christianity is also a good thing. One talented writer has stated that mankind lived without science for many centuries, but not without religion.

This "science" about which you and others wax effusive gave humanity:1. Nuclear bombs, used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and threatening today from North Korea and Iran,2. Zyklon B poison gas, used on hundreds of thousands of Jews in Germany,3. Sex change operations,4. Partial birth abortions,5. *Toxic* gasoline, now *poisoning the air and the entire earth!*

... their books (by Dawkins and Harris) are identical in their message: Because scientific theories are true, religious beliefs must be false. (Sam) Harris has conveyed the point by entitling an essay "Science Must Destroy Religion." His call to jihad cannot be long delayed. - The Devil's Delusion, page xii

In all this, two influential ideas are at work. The first is that there is something answering to the name of science. The second is that something answering to the name of science offers sophisticated men and women a coherent vision of the universe. The second claim is false if the first claim is false. And the first claim is false. Nothing answers to the name of science. And Nothing has no particular method either, beyond the immemorial dictates of common sense.

We have been vouchsafed four powerful and profound scientific theories since the great scientific revolution of the West was set in motion in the seventeenth century - Newtonian mechanics, James Clerk Maxwell's theory of the electromagnetic field, special and general relativity, and quantum mechanics. - Ibid

==============

These splendid artifacts of the human imagination have made the world more mysterious than it ever was. We know better than we did what we do not know and have not grasped. - page xiii

"Religion's power to console," Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion, "doesn't make it true." Perhaps this is so, but only a man who has spent a good deal of time snoring on the down of plenty could be quite so indifferent to the consolations of religion, wherever and however they may be found. One wonders, in any case why religion has the power to console and why it has had this power over the course of human history." - The Devil's Delusion, by David Berlinski, page 11, 12

]]>2019-05-22T18:22:22+01:002019-05-22T18:22:22+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006726#p15006726Is the OP denying the fact that new species of life forms cone into existence through gradual change?

Or is the OP criticising a particular aspect ig Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection?

]]>2019-05-22T18:20:26+01:002019-05-22T18:20:26+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006725#p15006725How so? What experiment was carried out to show that our mere existence is evidence of intelligent design? Where is the experimental evidence?

Do you know that a single human being consists of more bits of information than in the entire inorganic universe?

Irreducible Complexity on that scale alone makes the theory of evolution flawed.

Your understanding is a bit flawed.

Yes, in the macroscopic. Randomness and chaos tend NOT to organize, and thus, you would think that the formation of the universe and life is not possible. HOWEVER, what you are failing to realize is that the universe is massive. If you look at local sections of the universe (microscopic), you will find positive energy systems that tends away from entropy.

Example: If you look at the earth as a closed system, it is a system that is constantly getting energy injected into it, and thus creates the chance that self replicating molecules and life can come to existence. As a local system, the earth tends AWAY from entropy at this particular point in space-time. Eventually, the macroscopic nature of the universe will take hold and this will not be true.

Time plus Magic =Evolution is not scientific, never will be. Self-organization is assumed by the moderns, not observed, and overall entropic processes, the working ''arm'' of chaos and probability, undoing anything that is made, is impossible to ignore.

That is not to say that variation within groups cannot be observed, nor that in isolated cases organic progress cannot or has not happened (I believe that in fact there was an Unique 'speciation event' which took place within recorded human history), but that everywhere just as in your own life, intellect and intentionality and will are the reasons at work, not a mythical and magical self evolving universe that just ''happens'' without any reasonable mechanism for this development being scientifically observable. We know from life that intellect moves and makes all things, what that Intellect Designer or intellects designing are in this case Cosmologically is not a question solvable by the natural sciences.

Intelligent design is not needed to explain this.

It is if it is something scientific at work and not just another belief system that starts from fundamental assumptions and goes from there. We know from our own personal experiences that intelligent volition is what is at work in the world we live in everyday, and the universe is no exception to that rule.

Now to be fair to modern evolutionary believers, the notion of generation resulting in complex order arising instead of the observed complex order resulting in generation of new things, is not a new idea at all. It was common in the Pagan myths worldwide, actually. But it isn't Scientific, and I doubt we would be able to even have the civilization that we have now if we had not been living off the intellectual and spiritual capital of those who for centuries taught and believed otherwise, past 100 years or so.

But this conversation is rather arid and sterile, as it changes nothing, least of all belief.

]]>2019-05-22T18:13:38+01:002019-05-22T18:13:38+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006723#p15006723annatar1914 wrote:As with everything else in natural experience, an ordering principle or force cannot be less than what it orders or organizes forcefully in scale or kind. Sure, a pencil sharpener sharpens pencils, but requires a will and intellect that wants a pencil sharpened to begin with.

Will and intelligence isn't necessary, esoteric philosophy holds that the universe emerges spontaneously out of the primordial chaos as a natural response to the mere presence of the divine singularity. There is no deliberate, intelligent act of creation, the universe is the product of an unintentional force exerted by the Absolute on infinite potentiality.

]]>2019-05-22T18:03:55+01:002019-05-22T18:03:55+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006721#p15006721Hindsite wrote:Miracle definition:a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

I doubt if speaking of miracles is something that MrWonderful would appreciate on his scientific based thread concerning the evolution fraud. No miracles allowed.

I appreciate your insightful remarks, Hindsite. My point is that scientifically speaking, Darwinism is fatally flawed from the outset by the insuperable statistics. There's simply no way around them, try as the Alphabetologists may. "A>B>C>D" may work in Richard Dawkins' biology classes, but it is as inane as you can get.

Nobody has to mention the Bible or anything religious in discussing the Evolution Fraud. Darwinism must stand on its own or it fails. Darwinists are constantly demanding "alternative" theories or else theirs "wins" by default (they think, they claim, they pretend). That is not science, but then again, they only pretend to be experts in the field.

]]>2019-05-22T15:11:56+01:002019-05-22T15:11:56+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006686#p15006686annatar1914 wrote:You are that evidence...

How so? What experiment was carried out to show that our mere existence is evidence of intelligent design? Where is the experimental evidence?

annatar1914 wrote:That's not what I was saying, either; Chaos and randomness do exist, but they are not a self-organizing force. As Aristotle and the other ancient philosophers said; ''out of Nothing, nothing comes''. Randomness (I took courses on probability theory once) does not increase intelligence or intelligibility, but breaks it down Evolution is therefore in that respect a cousin to the mathematical ''Gambler's fallacy'', the expectation that given enough time, magical results will appear and not disappear

Your understanding is a bit flawed.

Yes, in the macroscopic. Randomness and chaos tend NOT to organize, and thus, you would think that the formation of the universe and life is not possible. HOWEVER, what you are failing to realize is that the universe is massive. If you look at local sections of the universe (microscopic), you will find positive energy systems that tends away from entropy.

Example: If you look at the earth as a closed system, it is a system that is constantly getting energy injected into it, and thus creates the chance that self replicating molecules and life can come to existence. As a local system, the earth tends AWAY from entropy at this particular point in space-time. Eventually, the macroscopic nature of the universe will take hold and this will not be true.

]]>2019-05-22T04:36:52+01:002019-05-22T04:36:52+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006626#p15006626a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

I doubt if speaking of miracles is something that MrWonderful would appreciate on his scientific based thread concerning the evolution fraud. No miracles allowed.

]]>2019-05-22T02:42:44+01:002019-05-22T02:42:44+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006607#p15006607It doesn't presuppose a "creator", it only points to an ordering principle or force.

As with everything else in natural experience, an ordering principle or force cannot be less than what it orders or organizes forcefully in scale or kind. Sure, a pencil sharpener sharpens pencils, but requires a will and intellect that wants a pencil sharpened to begin with.

Most atheist materialists are philosophically illiterate, they don't get that brute facts completely undermine materialism and even naturalism.

I'm a materialist of sorts, but not atheistic, but i'm not sure philosophy in and of itself is very convincing to most Atheists

“Every model of the universe has a hard swallow… a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it.

The hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang… this is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing, in a single instant. Well, before we dissect this notion, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely, or less likely to be believed. …it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant for no reason? … it makes no sense. It is in fact no different than saying, ‘And God said, let there be light.’

And what the philosophers of Science are saying is, ‘Give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward from the birth of Time to the crack of Doom! Just one free miracle.’ And then it will all unravel according to natural Law and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise.

Reminds me of reading Thomas Kuhn and his works on the nature of scientific revolutions.

Miracles though are fine by me, because to dismiss them as something outside of what we know doesn't mean that it is something that is outside reason or the realm of possibility. I'm rather comforted slightly by the fact that we don't know much in the natural sciences, in reality, but i'm not for that reason fearful of science properly so-called.

]]>2019-05-22T02:18:41+01:002019-05-22T02:18:41+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006602#p15006602annatar1914 wrote:It's the uiniverse's intelligibility that presupposes a Creator

It doesn't presuppose a "creator", it only points to an ordering principle or force.

Once you go down the path to random Chaos somehow magically resolving itself into Order, one's own intelligibility becomes after a while madness, nonsense.

Most atheist materialists are philosophically illiterate, they don't get that brute facts completely undermine materialism and even naturalism.

“Every model of the universe has a hard swallow… a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it.

The hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang… this is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing, in a single instant. Well, before we dissect this notion, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely, or less likely to be believed. …it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant for no reason? … it makes no sense. It is in fact no different than saying, ‘And God said, let there be light.’

And what the philosophers of Science are saying is, ‘Give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward from the birth of Time to the crack of Doom! Just one free miracle.’ And then it will all unravel according to natural Law and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise.

]]>2019-05-22T01:53:12+01:002019-05-22T01:53:12+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006589#p15006589Godstud wrote:Man is evidence of nothing, except that some animals evolve intelligence as an adaptation.

]]>2019-05-22T00:54:46+01:002019-05-22T00:54:46+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006567#p15006567Godstud wrote:Man is evidence of nothing, except that some animals evolve intelligence as an adaptation.

That's your faith-based belief talking

But anyway, that being the situation IMO, this is why I do not enter much into these kinds of debates anymore. I figure that we'll find out in any case soon enough, who was right and who was wrong. In the interim, I try not to judge people and their motivations too much.

I disagree, the existence of an intelligible universe does not preclude random chance and chaos.

That's not what I was saying, either; Chaos and randomness do exist, but they are not a self-organizing force. As Aristotle and the other ancient philosophers said; ''out of Nothing, nothing comes''. Randomness (I took courses on probability theory once) does not increase intelligence or intelligibility, but breaks it down Evolution is therefore in that respect a cousin to the mathematical ''Gambler's fallacy'', the expectation that given enough time, magical results will appear and not disappear.

Intelligent design means we need to find ACTUAL evidence of a designer. I'm not sure we could ever find that evidence, as we would probably need to be able to observe the universe outside of the universe to know if someone made it.

Again, Intelligibility presupposes an Intelligence that created the Universe, because for one thing we surely did not. The question of who or what that intelligence would be is another question altogether, mind you.

To be clear, the existence of an intelligible universe could be part of a body of evidence suggesting intelligent design. I can accept that. However, I think we would need more evidence to conclude on intelligent design.

]]>2019-05-22T00:27:06+01:002019-05-22T00:27:06+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006540#p15006540annatar1914 wrote:It's the uiniverse's intelligibility that presupposes a Creator Who is in fact Intelligence Himself. Once you go down the path to random Chaos somehow magically resolving itself into Order, one's own intelligibility becomes after a while madness, nonsense.

I disagree, the existence of an intelligible universe does not preclude random chance and chaos. Intelligent design means we need to find ACTUAL evidence of a designer. I'm not sure we could ever find that evidence, as we would probably need to be able to observe the universe outside of the universe to know if someone made it.

To be clear, the existence of an intelligible universe could be part of a body of evidence suggesting intelligent design. I can accept that. However, I think we would need more evidence to conclude on intelligent design.

]]>2019-05-22T00:19:48+01:002019-05-22T00:19:48+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006533#p15006533Statistics: Posted by Godstud — 22 May 2019 00:19
]]>2019-05-22T00:07:26+01:002019-05-22T00:07:26+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006527#p15006527Rancid wrote:Can you expand on this one? I don't see why you would have to accept intelligent design to study the universe?

It's the uiniverse's intelligibility that presupposes a Creator Who is in fact Intelligence Himself. Once you go down the path to random Chaos somehow magically resolving itself into Order, one's own intelligibility becomes after a while madness, nonsense.

]]>2019-05-22T00:01:36+01:002019-05-22T00:01:36+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006525#p15006525annatar1914 wrote:Under my definition of Religion (and ''Religion'' comes from the Latin word meaning ''to bind'')as a system that claims to have answers to common issues of ultimate human concern, there's no such animal in reality as an absence of belief but rather the replacement of one belief by another. Well then, you're simply wrong them. Absence of belief is not a replacement of it with another. Only a supreme arrogance would assume such a thing.

PLease, @annatar1914 Tell me what I "believe".

annatar1914 wrote:Nor is a ''literal interpretation'' of the Bible in this case something that is ''Anti-scientific'', because science involves matters that are testable and repeatable under rigorous laboratory conditions, organized philosophically in terms of formal logic.

It is when it starts to dispute the age of the world, and humans, as established by science. Intelligent Design is just a fancy word for Creationism.

Intelligent Design is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, so it is not science.

annatar1914 wrote:Non-Atheistic thinkers and scientists do the same thing, merely in some cases making different fundamental assumptions about nature and reality than the Atheist scientist and thinker would do. I could talk about information theory and irreducable complexity, and other specific philosophical and scientific problems with the the theory of evolution, but I don't think that would be particularly useful or necessary. You simply believe in it, and I simply do not, although I used to and equally as sincerely until I saw intellectual problems with it.

Evolution(the theory) has nothing to do with "belief" and that is where your argument is fundamentally flawed. It has to do with science. Belief has no place in science.

Assigning intellect to the universe is fine, as long as it doesn't start interfering with science which, as you clearly demonstrate with your disbelief of a well-established and proven Theory, it does. You don't believe the science because of your "belief" in ID. Therefore, you're ignoring the science in favour of "faith". That is why you fail.

Yes, @Hindsite, and ID is just a form of moronic Creationism, where science doesn't matter, if it disagrees with ID.

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

]]>2019-05-21T23:49:22+01:002019-05-21T23:49:22+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006516#p15006516annatar1914 wrote:Real Science doesn't dispute intelligent design, it is the necessary condition for real science to even develop.

Can you expand on this one? I don't see why you would have to accept intelligent design to study the universe?

]]>2019-05-21T23:26:25+01:002019-05-21T23:26:25+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006496#p15006496Besoeker2 wrote:Faith doesn't require evidence. What is dishonest about that??

1. YOU brought up the subject of "faith" in a discussion of science. You and your atheist/Leftist allies (but I repeat myself) are constantly condemning the Holy Bible and religion, but you can't wait to bring them up whenever the subject is .... science. That is dishonest. That is hypocritical. That is you.

2. You know very little about either faith or evidence, obviously. You only PRETEND to be some kind of intellectual authority, without demonstrating any at all.

“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley

Atheism is not a religion. You do your intelligence a dis-service by stating such. Not believing in something is not a "belief", but an absence of it.

Under my definition of Religion (and ''Religion'' comes from the Latin word meaning ''to bind'')as a system that claims to have answers to common issues of ultimate human concern, there's no such animal in reality as an absence of belief but rather the replacement of one belief by another.

Intelligent design would be fine were it not also disputing real science to support literal interpretations of the Bible.

Real Science doesn't dispute intelligent design, it is the necessary condition for real science to even develop. Nor is a ''literal interpretation'' of the Bible in this case something that is ''Anti-scientific'', because science involves matters that are testable and repeatable under rigorous laboratory conditions, organized philosophically in terms of formal logic.

Science does not dispute the Bible, because it's about figuring out the world around us, and not dealing with philosophical questions like, "Who are we?", "Who made us?", or "Why are we here?".

Exactly so... But an Atheist intellect necessarily still has to make fundamental assumptions about reality, and so brings these assumptions into juxtaposition with the framework of their scientific thought. Non-Atheistic thinkers and scientists do the same thing, merely in some cases making different fundamental assumptions about nature and reality than the Atheist scientist and thinker would do. I could talk about information theory and irreducable complexity, and other specific philosophical and scientific problems with the the theory of evolution, but I don't think that would be particularly useful or necessary. You simply believe in it, and I simply do not, although I used to and equally as sincerely until I saw intellectual problems with it.

The scientific theories do not disprove the existence of a god, because they're not trying to. They are taking factual observations of the world around us. If you want to think that a god made that, then that's fine. It doesn't make the science any less real, unless you try to apply it to a book made 2,000 years ago when people thought a person flying would be inconceivable.

This unfortunately is another assumption of our modern secular age in which the ancients are seen as being somehow ignorant of possible future realities. And yet in Greco-Roman Myth for example we have the legend of Icarus and Daedelus flying around with artificial wings, and in Scripture we have all kinds of sightings of winged creatures called Angels. So yeah, people back then weren't ignorant, and even could imagine technics capable of doing what could not be done in their time even if they didn't know how exactly.

And with Scripture itself, in earlier posts on threads elsewhere I have mentioned that I take it quite literally when it calls for it, and I'm even quite deliberately but entirely seriously naive in my understanding of it as well. I'm intelligent enough to have a simple faith that simply receives these things as true. By analogy, it might be like your life decision to live in a simpler society like Thailand that is very different in many ways from the Western one. I have made a conscious decision to make a somewhat similar move, but internally rather than physically.

]]>2019-05-21T13:55:56+01:002019-05-21T13:55:56+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006327#p15006327MrWonderful wrote:Nowhere in my original post does the word "faith" appear. You and your godless friends continue thumping the Bible and attributing your thumps to me.Very unscientific and dishonest of you. tsk, tsk

]]>2019-05-21T13:55:57+01:002019-05-21T13:43:49+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006322#p15006322MrWonderful wrote:1. You engage in petty ad hominem attacks, without providing anything remotely factual or compelling towards achieving your claims. These statements are well known. That you demand proof without ever proving any of your own claims is the height of hypocrisy, and ignorance, and pretension.

2. OF COURSE I'm far beneath you and your godless friends. That's all you have are your arrogant claims of intellectual superiority. But that's all they are - claims.

I'm quite sure you and your atheist friends don't talk so hatefully, so condescendingly, so maliciously in public gatherings. But if you do, you have few friends, and not anyone I would care to call a friend.

Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation, you would admit to an 'error', but no, you decide to play the 'victim', so let me tell you something, the tens of millions of innocent people killed in WW2 are real victims.

You invent your nonsense about the universe, how it began according to a collection of brainwashing books containing fables - aka- The Bible & you expect people on forums like this to play along with such stupidity-unbelievable nonsense.

Here is another pile of you know what from another religious actor, the former pope Francis, which should fit perfectly into your Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation mindset:

Pope Francis-

It is possible to believe in both evolution and the Catholic church’s teaching on creation, Pope Francis has said, as he cautioned against portraying God as a kind of magician who made the universe with a magic wand.“The big bang, which is today posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it,” the pope said in an address to a meeting at the pontifical academy of sciences.“Evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings which evolve.”Francis, 77, said it was easy to misinterpret the creation story as recounted in the book of Genesis, according to which God created heaven and Earth in six days and rested on the seventh.“When we read the creation story in Genesis we run the risk of imagining that God was a magician, with a magic wand which is able to do everything,” he said.“But it is not so. He created beings and let them develop according to internal laws which He gave every one, so they would develop, so they would reach maturity.”Although Francis was packaging the ideas with his trademark eye for a soundbite, the content of what he was saying does not mark a break with Catholic teaching, which has modified considerably since Charles Darwin published On The Origin of Species in 1859.Popes before him have also said that– with certain provisos – there is no incompatibility between evolution and God as divine creator.

Now, if you intend to argue in favour of this set of catholic lies, intended to give an impression of validity to the false premise on which the catholic church is based on, you had better come up with something altogether than the literary incontinence displayed in your previous post on the subject.

When you make a statement about the existence of something, such as the proposition of the existence of a 'god', it is a statement, any reader is entitled to demand that you prove beyond doubt the truth of that statement.

Now, because you can't, doesn't mean such a thing cannot exist-even metaphorically, such as in rhetoric, but no, there is no qualification to your statement's on the subject, so one is entitled to read them as intended fact by the author of such statement's,that being yourself.

You should, as the saying goes, "Put up, or shut up", or would you prefer to try digging yourself out of the hole that you are in?

]]>2019-05-21T09:07:38+01:002019-05-21T09:07:38+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176572&p=15006287#p15006287 "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs," the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, "in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories". - Ibid, page 9

Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek insouciantly offered: "The universe appears to be just one of those things." Of course if physicists can believe that the universe is just one of those things, then believers can affirm that God is just one of those things as well. - page 139

]]>2019-05-21T04:42:19+01:002019-05-21T04:42:19+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006263#p15006263Intelligent design would be fine were it not also disputing real science to support literal interpretations of the Bible.

Science does not dispute the Bible, because it's about figuring out the world around us, and not dealing with philosophical questions like, "Who are we?", "Who made us?", or "Why are we here?".

The scientific theories do not disprove the existence of a god, because they're not trying to. They are taking factual observations of the world around us. If you want to think that a god made that, then that's fine. It doesn't make the science any less real, unless you try to apply it to a book made 2,000 years ago when people thought a person flying would be inconcievable.

]]>2019-05-21T03:44:51+01:002019-05-21T03:44:51+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006248#p15006248Hindsite wrote:It appears that you are not even reasonably knowledgeable on intelligent design. So I shall wait to see if MrWonderful or anyone on here is knowledgeable enough to explain it. The atheists and evolutionists don't like the possibility that the world might have been intelligently designed; therefore, defending intelligent design will obviously receive many insults from the atheists and evolutionists.

This is because we human beings receive everything on faith, even those of us who are atheists and skeptics, but the object of faith between human beings differ. For Christians the Object of faith and trust is ultimately God, while for others it is ultimately only themselves.

It is in fact logically and philosophically foolish to think that all things arose by themselves from nothing, and then from Chaos to Order, but it is necessarily believed to be so by Atheists on faith, for their religion (''religion'' being defined I say as a individually and collectively binding system explaining issues of ultimate concern to the human person) which they firmly believe in.

This is why I have stated before that even should an genuine Atheist encounter God on a personal level, they would likely only see in Him merely a more powerful and more intelligent alien being than themselves, not as Creator and Lord of the Universe, the Personal Ground of all Being, including their own being.

]]>2019-05-21T03:30:31+01:002019-05-21T03:30:31+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006246#p15006246Ter wrote:I don't pretend to be wise but I am reasonably knowledgeable.What about you ? Not very it seems, if you try to defend intelligent design.

It appears that you are not even reasonably knowledgeable on intelligent design. So I shall wait to see if MrWonderful or anyone on here is knowledgeable enough to explain it. The atheists and evolutionists don't like the possibility that the world might have been intelligently designed; therefore, defending intelligent design will obviously receive many insults from the atheists and evolutionists. Perhaps religion and faith can be kept out of the discussion.

This conversation has descended into who can scream at the top of his lungs that his interlocutor is stupid/arrogant/idiot/whatever. This is a warning to all that cards will be handed around if you carry on attacking your interlocutor personally.

]]>2019-05-21T00:36:24+01:002019-05-21T00:36:24+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006216#p15006216Nonsense wrote:More nonsensical lies from you, "100,000,000 murdered in the atheist name of communism and you choose to focus on a few thousand killed in the Crusades, organized by the Spanish king, and a few score of witches. Which were the more recent and the more numerous victims by far"?

Foul lies seem to be the predominant feature of your post, either prove your statements from real sources or refrain from making them in the name of reason.

1. You engage in petty ad hominem attacks, without providing anything remotely factual or compelling towards achieving your claims. These statements are well known. That you demand proof without ever proving any of your own claims is the height of hypocrisy, and ignorance, and pretension.

2. OF COURSE I'm far beneath you and your godless friends. That's all you have are your arrogant claims of intellectual superiority. But that's all they are - claims.

I'm quite sure you and your atheist friends don't talk so hatefully, so condescendingly, so maliciously in public gatherings. But if you do, you have few friends, and not anyone I would care to call a friend.

]]>2019-05-20T23:15:29+01:002019-05-20T23:15:29+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006195#p15006195MrWonderful wrote:“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God.

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.” (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.” (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)

“The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

As to "the falsity of all things religious:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

------------------The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate galaxy, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.

In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. Genesis 1:1 was not.

Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.

So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie,”as Christians are so snidely denigrated by atheists), before anyone else.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

-------------------Modern chemistry could not have begun before 1802, when John Dalton formally provided experimental evidence that matter is composed of discrete atoms. Everything before this was mere speculation – guesswork. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in Genesis that man is “formed of the dust of the ground”, which is to say, the same elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, etc, that we find in . . . dust of the ground, minerals.

I have much, much more of what YOU call "falsity" from the Holy Bible. It will be presented when and where I choose, much to your dismay.

“The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advance of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble.” – Adolf Hitler

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins became atheists after long and exhaustive rational inquiries into the existence of God, both at the age of nine. - The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day, page 243

Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of communism. - Vladimir Lenin

100,000,000 murdered in the atheist name of communism and you choose to focus on a few thousand killed in the Crusades, organized by the Spanish king, and a few score of witches. Which were the more recent and the more numerous victims by far?

You confuse and extrapolate. Adaptation is unquestionable. Adaptation is NOT Darwinian evolution. Biologists have spent decades and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars trying to speed up the process by irradiating fruit flies, bacteria, and other animals to create a new specie. All have failed. Flies with four wings cannot survive outside the laboratory. Darwinism fails and you refuse to accept the facts.

Grammar is much simpler than science, and you fell flat in your often repeated footnote. None of your other brilliant *scientific* allies told you? But you have *faith* in them....... (Pun intended.)

Nonsense-

Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation

I asked a simple question about blue eyes , the answer incomprehensible to anyone but you.

DARWIN is a bringer of light to the world of his time, religion or faith followers are mere purveyers of lies & untruths about anything or everything.There is nothing in faith or religion that relates to reality, the stupid example you give about Genesis & Lamaitre.

The church to which he belonged can not accept the event of the Big Bang without taking 'ownership' of it by none other than the last Pope(Francis),or is that Dope?It's analogous of politicians staying on 'message' so too with religious dogma-AKA Lies & Falsehoods.

What about the catholic church saying that Jesus was , 'the son of god', the BIG lie, on which that church is founded, because, if a 'god' existed, why wouldn't the church that says that such a thing exist, set out to prove that statement which they purvey?

Scientist are often proven wrong by their peers, that, to any scientist, is proof that the scientific method validates science itself, because it is always amenable to reason, something which faith & religion can never accept.

It's no good you or anyone trying to 'prove' anything related to science, when such people as yourself cannot think for yourselves, but just quote what some writer purporting to be a 'scientist' publishes & taking it as gospel.

Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation

More nonsense in your Genesis about man being formed from the dust of the ground, you take any information from a book as 'truth', it's unbelievable, funny really, because that same book also says of Genesis, that everything was created in six days, Your 'god' must have been on 'holiday' when it all happened, not in six days but millionths of a second.

FACTS are sunny Jim, everything in the universe was created in that first few seconds or so, every atom in the universe, there was no time or space for any fictional characters called 'god'.

Here is my 'scientific' take on your nonsense

'god' = Sigma 0

Higgs Boson = Sigma 5

As one can see, science has the substance to discover what is invisible to non-scientist & faith or religion can never prove anything on which it is based, because there is zilch substance to it.

Now go and read some more fables in that book of 'magic' that you call a 'bible' & leave people to live their lives in the real universe.

Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation, "100,000,000 murdered in the atheist name of communism and you choose to focus on a few thousand killed in the Crusades, organized by the Spanish king, and a few score of witches. Which were the more recent and the more numerous victims by far"?

Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation seem to be the predominant feature of your post, either prove your statements from real sources or refrain from making them in the name of reason.

]]>2019-05-20T20:45:46+01:002019-05-20T20:45:46+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006174#p15006174MrWonderful wrote:They're full of shit. I'm full of shit

Exactly, you are all full of shit. And you're all full of shit in the exact same way for the exact same reason. You all share the same exact mentality and you are all militantly dedicated to bullshit. The only difference between you is your preferred brands of bullshit. It's the ideological equivalent of the cola wars.

but you have all the answers

I have honest rational skepticism, you're the one that claims to have all the answers.

]]>2019-05-20T19:32:21+01:002019-05-20T19:32:21+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006162#p15006162Sivad wrote:While I would bet my life that the babbitts are totally full of shit on the empirical adequacy of the neo-darwinian model, you're all the way up your own ass if you think a naturalistic explanation isn't possible in principle.

They're full of shit. I'm full of shit, but you have all the answers. Why don't you take the challenge I posed and explain the naturalistic explanation for a polypeptide of 1,000 amino acid residues in length. Be sure to explain precisely how all L-forms were used, and how this polypeptide was so precisely folded. Then there will be about 10,000 more of them to explain away, but I'm not asking for all of those. Just one, Mister Vulgar.

Incidentally, I have not once brought up the term "intelligent design." I have simply challenged Darwinism, which must stand on its own or else it falls. The prevailing argument propounded everywhere is to argue AGAINST intelligent design when in fact the subject is Darwinism.Try to stick to the subject. That would be scientific. Bringing up something else is your strawman argument. Unintelligent and anti-science, that.

]]>2019-05-20T19:24:32+01:002019-05-20T19:24:32+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006159#p15006159Nonsense wrote:As an outsider, I would reasonably speculate that the majority were\are of the 'bible-thumping' variety.

I think that I will stick to the certainty that science offers, rather than the falsity of all things religious.

“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God.

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.” (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.” (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)

“The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

As to "the falsity of all things religious:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

------------------The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate galaxy, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.

In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. Genesis 1:1 was not.

Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.

So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie,”as Christians are so snidely denigrated by atheists), before anyone else.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

-------------------Modern chemistry could not have begun before 1802, when John Dalton formally provided experimental evidence that matter is composed of discrete atoms. Everything before this was mere speculation – guesswork. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in Genesis that man is “formed of the dust of the ground”, which is to say, the same elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, etc, that we find in . . . dust of the ground, minerals.

I have much, much more of what YOU call "falsity" from the Holy Bible. It will be presented when and where I choose, much to your dismay.

Nonsense wrote:When 'faith' determines the fate of non-believers of any particular 'faith', with such punishment's (sic) as burning 'witches' or men, alive at the stake, imprisonment, mass slaughter, 'ex-communication', a myriad of (sic) inhuman tortures to make them comply for the purpose of simply controlling people, it's time to question just what 'faith' is about.

“The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advance of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble.” – Adolf Hitler

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins became atheists after long and exhaustive rational inquiries into the existence of God, both at the age of nine. - The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day, page 243

Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of communism. - Vladimir Lenin

100,000,000 murdered in the atheist name of communism and you choose to focus on a few thousand killed in the Crusades, organized by the Spanish king, and a few score of witches. Which were the more recent and the more numerous victims by far?

Nonsense wrote:The fact that there are mutations within all living things that eventually manifest themselves is evidence of evolution, because it is an agent of change over time, whether beneficial or not.

As an example,explain 'blue' eyes through the eyes(pun intended) of 'faith' Mr 'Wonderful'?

You confuse and extrapolate. Adaptation is unquestionable. Adaptation is NOT Darwinian evolution. Biologists have spent decades and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars trying to speed up the process by irradiating fruit flies, bacteria, and other animals to create a new specie. All have failed. Flies with four wings cannot survive outside the laboratory. Darwinism fails and you refuse to accept the facts.

]]>2019-05-20T17:29:16+01:002019-05-20T17:29:16+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006136#p15006136Nonsense wrote:I think that I will stick to the certainty that science offers, rather than the falsity of all things religious.

There is a lovely graph showing the percentage of various faiths and their retention rates.At the bottom of the list is atheism, 30% retention. Atheism has been stipulated to be a religion by the Supreme Court. This is something that makes atheists gnash their teeth in fury.heh heh

Knowing the recent history of 'creationism' in America, along with religious penetration of legal or other areas of political life there, the deliberation that 'Atheism' has been stipulated to be a 'religion' by the Supreme Court surprises no one.

It would be 'interesting' to read the 'deliberation' of the Supreme Court(I'm sure there is a joke in that title somewhere), perhaps accompanied by the divulgence of the religious & political interest of it's members.

As an outsider, I would reasonably speculate that the majority were\are of the 'bible-thumping' variety.

I think that I will stick to the certainty that science offers, rather than the falsity of all things religious.

For that reason, the likes of Einstein, Darwin,along with many others, are the true heroes of the world of our experience.

When 'faith' determines the fate of non-believers of any particular 'faith', with such punishment's, as burning 'witches' or men, alive at the stake, imprisonment, mass slaughter, 'ex-communication', a myriad of inhuman tortures to make them comply for the purpose of simply controlling people, it's time to question just what 'faith' is about.

Some would say that that, as ISIS demonstrates, it reveals that the zealots actually believe in nothing, for no matter how many 'faiths' or 'religions' there are in the world, the one common component in them, is the absolute absence of substance & the complete presence of zilch.

The fact that there are mutations within all living things that eventually manifest themselves is evidence of evolution, because it is an agent of change over time, whether beneficial or not.

As an example,explain 'blue' eyes through the eyes(pun intended) of 'faith' Mr 'Wonderful'?

]]>2019-05-20T17:08:06+01:002019-05-20T17:08:06+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006131#p15006131MrWonderful wrote:impossible to explain on any naturalistic basis

While I would bet my life that the babbitts are totally full of shit on the empirical adequacy of the neo-darwinian model, you're all the way up your own ass if you think a naturalistic explanation isn't possible in principle.

]]>2019-05-20T17:07:21+01:002019-05-20T17:07:21+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006130#p15006130MrWonderful wrote:You don't begin to tackle the original synthesis of the first polypeptide because it is so obviously impossible to explain on any naturalistic basis, much less to explain 10,000 of them.

]]>2019-05-20T16:27:15+01:002019-05-20T16:27:15+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006121#p15006121MrWonderful wrote:And the computer you are looking at right now "is here because it functions."

How can you give a computer as an example when we are talking about organisms ?My my, aren't we clever and cheap

MrWonderful wrote:And you pretend to be knowledgeable and wise?

I don't pretend to be wise but I am reasonably knowledgeable.What about you ? Not very it seems, if you try to defend intelligent design.

MrWonderful wrote:You don't begin to tackle the original synthesis of the first polypeptide because it is so obviously impossible to explain on any naturalistic basis, much less to explain 10,000 of them.

This is another attempt, pretty ludicrous, to try and bring back the discussion to your so-called impossibility to have a polypeptide chain as a result of Darwinian evolution.That peptide chain did not appear suddenly as a product of intelligent design mate.

MrWonderful wrote:"Tried out and failed." Well that answers that question of original synthesis of hemoglobin, doesn't it.

because you are trying to say that haemoglobin could not have been the result of evolution ?And don't forget to bring the eye and the wings to the discussion, always a big "winner" when it comes to intelligent design, lol.

I don't think you are capable of understanding that principle, you just throw this name here to make yourself appear knowledgeable. Which you are definitely not if you are a believer in intelligent design. We could say that people who believe in intelligent design are not very intelligent.

You will not convince anyone here to adopt your intelligent design ideas.But continue your babbling, it is amusing.

]]>2019-05-20T16:14:00+01:002019-05-20T16:14:00+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176359&p=15006115#p15006115Prosthetic Conscience wrote:brain-damaged crook who doesn't have a single clue about science or ethics, so we can ignore what he said.

]]>2019-05-20T16:05:35+01:002019-05-20T16:05:35+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176359&p=15006113#p15006113Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Trump and Delingpole, the two most knowledgeable and trustworthy people in the world about climate science, uncovered a grand conspiracy!!!

Tell us how it turned out, HW. WSJ articles are still behind their paywall, even when over 7 years old. What did the oh-so-intelligent Delingpole discover? Did it stop the climate science community in its tracks?

Has the fact of 100,000,000 humans murdered by socialists stopped socialism in its tracks?Not even close. Most millennials prefer socialism over a capitalist market.

"Totus mundis stultizat." (The whole world is getting stupider.) - Attributed to a European king at his round table meeting

]]>2019-05-20T15:45:16+01:002019-05-20T15:45:16+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006109#p15006109Ter wrote:@MrWonderful Your polypeptide reasoning does not hold water for the following reason:You are looking at something that exists today and speculate how it was able to come about. It is here because it functions.

And the computer you are looking at right now "is here because it functions."

Brilliant. That's Darwinism at its most superficial. Don't ask questions. It's just here, so there.

You don't begin to tackle the original synthesis of the first polypeptide because it is so obviously impossible to explain on any naturalistic basis, much less to explain 10,000 of them.

So you give the most puerile non-explanation possible: "It's here because it functions."And you pretend to be knowledgeable and wise?

Ted wrote:Some polypeptide chains that had a different sequence and therefore had different properties on a 2D or 3D level might have been tried out and failed, thus no longer being present.Mutations by themselves are blind but a number of evolutionary mechanisms are not, thus eliminating the need to try out all the billions and zillions of combinations you mentioned.

"Tried out and failed." Well that answers that question of original synthesis of hemoglobin, doesn't it.

"Billions and zillions." My but aren't you sophisticated. How many billions in a zillion?

Ter wrote:You might dazzle less educated audiences with the astronomical number of possibilities to build a peptide chain but here on Pofo that will not work.

]]>2019-05-20T15:37:32+01:002019-05-20T15:37:32+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176571&p=15006107#p15006107Godstud wrote:Another one who disputes science for the sake of his religion, or because he can't understand it.

Intelligent Design/Creationism rubbish.

Science does not require "faith". It requires evidence. It does not require "God".

]]>2019-05-20T15:27:18+01:002019-05-20T15:27:18+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176556&p=15006105#p15006105blackjack21 wrote:Principally to keep the water source clean and prevent corrosion. Condensers and cooling towers typically use a separate water source and give off water vapor. This is an example of what they look like:

Before we can even begin to critique any particular scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon, we must first define and limit the subject of discussion.

In other words, what are we talking about?

You proceed without having first defined "evolution." It is a very slippery word. Proponents of Darwinism use the most gentle, most limited descriptions when it suits them/you, and at other times, hammer it down to insist that all plant and animal life arose from a single form.

This is terribly unscientific, as are so many claims made in its behalf.

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.” (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).

Addressing the petty display of vulgarity and condescension by one who will not be named above:

]]>2019-05-20T15:09:48+01:002019-05-20T15:09:48+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176556&p=15006100#p15006100And subsequently through a condenser or cooling tower and reused.

Principally to keep the water source clean and prevent corrosion. Condensers and cooling towers typically use a separate water source and give off water vapor. This is an example of what they look like:

]]>2019-05-20T15:01:46+01:002019-05-20T15:01:46+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176572&p=15006098#p15006098Admin Edit: Redacted. Use the report function to make reports to the moderators not your own post.

Are these men, and thousands of others like them, all ignorant of this magesterium of *science* about which so many pretentious atheists pretend to know so much?

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion

“I can think of no other example in all of history when an important scientific theory (Darwinism) – a dominant position in intellectual life – was held in such contempt and skepticism by people who are paying for its research. People just found that theory impossible to swallow.” – David Berlinski, 2008 lecture

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.” (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.” (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).